2021 - Is inflation finally back in the conversation?

[Incredulity 11859]

Yes.  Removing 840K over the last 12 is a huge fucking problem.  Both in real terms and as it relates to the governments ability to monitor(and make decisions about) economic reality.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

Yea if I was The Fed I’d be pissed too. Going from great to good throws off their timing.

[Captainant 28381]

38 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Well, when a 'person' is also 'the business', as in...they are the owner, it makes a fucking world of difference, because that's where a huge amount of LT cap gains tax comes from.  

something tells me the size of small business LT cap gains is several orders of magnitude smaller than the majors LT cap gains. But don't let me stop y'all from conflating cap gains taxes on 100k LT vs 100M in LT gains. It's a very honest apples to oranges comparison 

[Storm the Field 5359]

59 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Nonfarm payroll revised lower by 818,000 for the 12 month period through Mar 2024.  

 

One interesting side effect of removing those jobs is that productivity numbers for the same period look better.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

And people had way more money to spend. The economy is thundering, booming, and howling. I’m so scared of it all.

[Trey3216 15450]

1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

And people had way more money to spend. The economy is thundering, booming, and howling. I’m so scared of it all.

Minus that whole inflation bit, and the little thing that credit card debts and delinquencies are historically high, late payments on utilities and autos are terribad, and a lot of other signs are there that things aren't looking that pretty.  But strike up the band and rearrange the deck chairs, cap'n.  

[Incredulity 11859]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

But don't let me stop y'all from conflating cap gains taxes on 100k LT vs 100M in LT gains.

There is not discussion AFAIK of the change in cap gains rates only applying to 100M.  

[Trey3216 15450]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

something tells me the size of small business LT cap gains is several orders of magnitude smaller than the majors LT cap gains. But don't let me stop y'all from conflating cap gains taxes on 100k LT vs 100M in LT gains. It's a very honest apples to oranges comparison 

By all means....let's punish the hundreds of thousands/millions of 100k LT cap gainers because of the worries of 300-500 100mm LT cap gainers....and then factor in the amount of people those fuckers employ as well.  By all fucking means.  

[Captainant 28381]

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

By all means....let's punish the hundreds of thousands/millions of 100k LT cap gainers because of the worries of 300-500 100mm LT cap gainers....and then factor in the amount of people those fuckers employ as well.  By all fucking means.  

L O L

A business paying taxes is "punishment" for the owners and employees? Gimmeafugginbreak

[StassneyHorn 6755]

The 39.6% initial increase LT cap gains rate that would move into the 44%  doesn’t apply to under 500k gains in the proposal

Edited August 21 by StassneyHorn

[UTPhil2006 3909]

34 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Yea if I was The Fed I’d be pissed too. Going from great to good throws off their timing.

It is frustrating when false numbers controlled your livelihood 

[StassneyHorn 6755]

The June pump fake on lowering fed rates would make Paul Pierce blush

[StassneyHorn 6755]

20 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Minus that whole inflation bit, and the little thing that credit card debts and delinquencies are historically high, late payments on utilities and autos are terribad, and a lot of other signs are there that things aren't looking that pretty.  But strike up the band and rearrange the deck chairs, cap'n.  

Fear porn that is irrelevant 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

Nonfarm payroll revised lower by 818,000 for the 12 month period through Mar 2024.  

 

Is there a good breakdown somewhere?

Are Full Time job numbers still negative from 3/2023 - 3/2024 or did the revision change that?

[Enchubben 5597]

The administration of this unrealized capital gains tax will be nearly impossible without adding another 100k IRS employees and even then not gather anywhere near the tax they expect to collect. 

What it will do is open the door to lowering that 100m threshold down to say $1m or less within a handful of election cycles. 

[Captainant 28381]

51 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

The administration of this unrealized capital gains tax will be nearly impossible without adding another 100k IRS employees and even then not gather anywhere near the tax they expect to collect. 

What it will do is open the door to lowering that 100m threshold down to say $1m or less within a handful of election cycles. 

If you're an individual with over a million in LT cap gains in a year, then you've got fuck you money and aren't exactly getting pUnIsHeD seeing a few extra percentage points of taxes on your free money you didn't work for lol. Oh no! Now I can't afford my THIRD rent house! THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!

[Enchubben 5597]

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If you're an individual with over a million in LT cap gains in a year, then you've got fuck you money and aren't exactly getting pUnIsHeD seeing a few extra percentage points of taxes on your free money you didn't work for lol. Oh no! Now I can't afford my THIRD rent house! THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!

Sorry you’re poor. J/k.

but do you not think they’ll expand the base and lower the threshold until they get the money they need? 

[Captainant 28381]

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Sorry you’re poor. J/k.

but do you not think they’ll expand the base and lower the threshold until they get the money they need? 

Taxes are historically low for corporate entities and the ultra wealthy. I don't buy the slippery slope argument when we're already at the bottom of the hill for cutting taxes and making new loopholes

[Incredulity 11859]

More than doubling of cap gains rate is, “a few extra percentage points of taxes”.

what a fucking clown

[Captainant 28381]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

More than doubling of cap gains rate is, “a few extra percentage points of taxes”.

what a fucking clown

** For annual LT cap gains over $1MM. My condolences if you're impacted by the proposal. 

Edited August 22 by Captainant

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

I don't know if this is the place to discuss it, but the gymnastics involved in trying to alchemically convert asset ownership into income for the purpose of taxing the wealthy is a great example of why efforts to make the tax structure more equitable would be more straightforward and successful if we taxed consumption (ie spending) as it exceeded graduated thresholds rather than production. 

Wealth is not work. Wealth is the equity that accrues to someone or something as the surplus value of their labor and the labor of others. It is not income, but the result of income, and it is folly to treat it the same way. 

Edited August 22 by Bozo_Casanova

[BabaYaga 15532]

Or we could, you know, maybe spend less.....

[Skipper 6406]

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

** For annual LT cap gains over $1MM. My condolences if you're impacted by the proposal. 

So the startup or small business owner or group of owners that have been grinding past 10-15 years to build their business (income is taxed) while taking a small salary (also already taxed) to build equity should now pay more than double capital gains tax because their risk and hard work paid off?  How American of you.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Or we could, you know, maybe spend less.....

Spending cuts would not make the tax code more equitable. It would merely reduce the subsidy paid to us by the unborn. 

[Incredulity 11859]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Spending cuts would not make the tax code more equitable. It would merely reduce the subsidy paid to us by the unborn. 

what a coincidence, "Subsidy by the Unborn" is the name of my thrash metal band.

[BabaYaga 15532]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Spending cuts would not make the tax code more equitable. It would merely reduce the subsidy paid to us by the unborn. 

True, but it would help with the overarching argument of why we need more tax revenue in the first place.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

True, but it would help with the overarching argument of why we need more tax revenue in the first place.  

It really wouldn't though. First of all, there's the issue of managing the rate of cuts to avoid the recessionary impact. Second, there's the simple fact that you could cut %100 of all discretionary spending and it wouldn't be enough to fund the federal deficit. 

Our issue is non-discretionary, ie legally mandatory spending - Social security, national defense, interest payments on the debt, medicare, and medicaid. More or less in that order. 

It's a solvable problem, but saying we could "just cut spending" is just as fantastical as "we should just tax wealth".

[Enchubben 5597]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't know if this is the place to discuss it, but the gymnastics involved in trying to alchemically convert asset ownership into income for the purpose of taxing the wealthy is a great example of why efforts to make the tax structure more equitable would be more straightforward and successful if we taxed consumption (ie spending) as it exceeded graduated thresholds rather than production. 

Wealth is not work. Wealth is the equity that accrues to someone or something as the surplus value of their labor and the labor of others. It is not income, but the result of income, and it is folly to treat it the same way. 

100% on board with moving away from income-based taxation, and towards a national (and eventual state) VAT. There are tons of really good reasons to make such a change, and there is really just one reason we won't. It's regressive towards the poorest of us. But it's a far more practical change that actually raises the revenue its intended to, businesses are incentivized to comply, and its easy to understand. 

[BabaYaga 15532]

23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It really wouldn't though. First of all, there's the issue of managing the rate of cuts to avoid the recessionary impact. Second, there's the simple fact that you could cut %100 of all discretionary spending and it wouldn't be enough to fund the federal deficit. 

Our issue is non-discretionary, ie legally mandatory spending - Social security, national defense, interest payments on the debt, medicare, and medicaid. More or less in that order. 

It's a solvable problem, but saying we could "just cut spending" is just as fantastical as "we should just tax wealth".

That's fine, but when the interest paid on debt equals and/or starts to approach 100% of GDP.....it's lights out, and simply rehashing the revenue side of the balance sheet isn't going to be enough.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

25 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

100% on board with moving away from income-based taxation, and towards a national (and eventual state) VAT. There are tons of really good reasons to make such a change, and there is really just one reason we won't. It's regressive towards the poorest of us. But it's a far more practical change that actually raises the revenue its intended to, businesses are incentivized to comply, and its easy to understand. 

this is a good post, but I don't think the bolded line has to be true. There's a number of ways we could manage that, any number of which would be less complex and problematic than what we do now. 
 

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's fine, but when the interest paid on debt equals and/or starts to approach 100% of GDP.....it's lights out, and simply rehashing the revenue side of the balance sheet isn't going to be enough.  

No argument here. This was my primary argument on HF and Shaggy when we were stupidly financing tax cuts with debt in 2001 and 2003* to provide further short term stimulus even thought we were already in an expansion- that we were foreclosing our last, best chance reset the national debt, and ultimately reduce the tax burden on everyone.  

We may be fucked. We may run out of options other than minting the coin, as silly as that sounds. 
 

*of course we shouldn't have made them permanent either in 2012, but at that point we were just emerging from a giant financial crisis and didn't have dry powder, which is exactly why it's so goddamn stupid to initiate deficit funded fiscal stimulus in the middle of an expansion.

Edited August 22 by Bozo_Casanova

[Captainant 28381]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

it's so goddamn stupid to initiate deficit funded fiscal stimulus in the middle of an expansion

[laughs in 2017 tax cuts]

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[laughs in 2017 tax cuts]

Like giving OxyContin to somebody with a preexisting heroine addiction.

[statsman 5675]

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[laughs in 2017 tax cuts]

You can argue that about the individual tax rates and deductions from the 2017 act. The corporate tax reduction had been needed for a long time, and it would be stupid to increase it to pre-2017 rates, unless the desire is to have private sector operating like it did from 2007-2017, when the majority of growth was in the public sector and industries favored by government spending. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

9 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

this is a good post, but I don't think the bolded line has to be true. There's a number of ways we could manage that, any number of which would be less complex and problematic than what we do now. 

Correct. This is typical trope from our resident I got my economics degree from TikTok captcommie bullshit.  Looking forward to the opposite overcorrection that will follow this LT gains silliness. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

How about we strip the estate tax examption back to 1M and tax all estates over 1M at 50% like we used to fucking do.

[statsman 5675]

6 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

How about we strip the estate tax examption back to 1M and tax all estates over 1M at 50% like we used to fucking do.

Why? So that we can enrich accountants and lawyers setting up trusts and wealth transfers?

It’s like you don’t realize how wealthy our legislators are. 

Edited August 23 by statsman

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why? So that we can enrich accountants and lawyers setting up trusts and wealth transfers?

It’s like you don’t realize how wealthy our legislators are. 

Not at all. I think you blow up the whole trust and wealth transfer scheme once and for all.  The wealthy have benefited throughout their lives without paying their fair share (I pay more as a percentage of my income than a lot of the billionaire class, which is complete bullshit), so if they refuse to pay their share during their life, then hit them on death. It isn't that hard.

[BabaYaga 15532]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not at all. I think you blow up the whole trust and wealth transfer scheme once and for all.  The wealthy have benefited throughout their lives without paying their fair share (I pay more as a percentage of my income than a lot of the billionaire class, which is complete bullshit), so if they refuse to pay their share during their life, then hit them on death. It isn't that hard.

Not that hard?  Mark Penn, former top Clinton economist and top advisor staunchly disagrees

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not that hard?  Mark Penn, former top Clinton economist and top advisor staunchly disagrees

 

You are talking about Capital Gains.  I am ok keeping Capital Gains while they live, then nailing them when they die. Apples and oranges.

[BabaYaga 15532]

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are talking about Capital Gains.  I am ok keeping Capital Gains while they live, then nailing them when they die. Apples and oranges.

So to be clear, you are ok with keeping the current process in place for capital gains, and instead raising the tax rates on "the rich" who have the means to simply move money around to avoid paying sed taxes on them.  How do that work?  We destroying trusts, LLCs, etc?  They are "rich" now because there is no attack mechanism on them to declare that wealth.  Change the rules, so will they.  Them poof, on paper they are no longer "rich" minus unrealized capital gains, which you said you are fine with leaving as is.  

[washparkhorn 9967]

Everything is transitory if you give it enough time. -Chairman Powell

[Storm the Field 5359]

Powell pretty much locked in the FOMC to cutting at the September meeting.

"The time has come for policy to adjust. We do not seek or welcome further cooling in the labor market."

I'd wager the standard 25 points. Nothing dramatic like 50.

10-year currently down to 3.82%. 

Edited August 23 by Storm the Field

[washparkhorn 9967]

“Bad news is good news”—RIP, August 23, 2024, Jackson Hole, Wyoming

[washparkhorn 9967]

A 50 rate cut in September would be prudent given the labor market weakening. 

[Trey3216 15450]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

So to be clear, you are ok with keeping the current process in place for capital gains, and instead raising the tax rates on "the rich" who have the means to simply move money around to avoid paying sed taxes on them.  How do that work?  We destroying trusts, LLCs, etc?  They are "rich" now because there is no attack mechanism on them to declare that wealth.  Change the rules, so will they.  Them poof, on paper they are no longer "rich" minus unrealized capital gains, which you said you are fine with leaving as is.  

...and a few states wanting to do things like this with tax payer dollars!! What could go wrong?

 

 

 

[David Dennison 19440]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

...and a few states wanting to do things like this with tax payer dollars!! What could go wrong?

 

 

Subsidies for me, but not for thee.

[Enchubben 5597]

You almost just have to throw out CA policy at this point since its so far off the reservation.  I saw reports that the subsidy program for rooftop solar panels is expected to cost non rooftop panel owners in CA over $8.5B annually by the end of the year on top of increased electricity costs. 

[gurt 796]

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not at all. I think you blow up the whole trust and wealth transfer scheme once and for all.  The wealthy have benefited throughout their lives without paying their fair share (I pay more as a percentage of my income than a lot of the billionaire class, which is complete bullshit), so if they refuse to pay their share during their life, then hit them on death. It isn't that hard.

you'd be punishing way more "normal" people than you think.  My wife has had a ranch in the family for nearly 100 years, without a trust that land would have to be sold by my wife and her sister due to the tax bill.  Guess who would buy it up?  Real estate developers.

[BabaYaga 15532]

6 minutes ago, gurt said:

you'd be punishing way more "normal" people than you think.  My wife has had a ranch in the family for nearly 100 years, without a trust that land would have to be sold by my wife and her sister due to the tax bill.  Guess who would buy it up?  Real estate developers.

Same

[Incredulity 11859]

16 minutes ago, gurt said:

you'd be punishing way more "normal" people than you think.  My wife has had a ranch in the family for nearly 100 years, without a trust that land would have to be sold by my wife and her sister due to the tax bill.  Guess who would buy it up?  Real estate developers.

Interesting.  Was told on the markets thread I was making situations like this up.